Why Does EPA Believe Manure That is Burned as a Fuel is a Solid Waste, and What

Data/Information Could Commenters Provide to Support the Asser tion That it is Not a Solid

Waste?

Is Manure a Traditional Fuel?

EPA considers traditional fuels to be those material s that have been historically burned as fuels and have been managed as valuable fuel products. Included in the list of materials identified as traditional fuels are: clean cellulosic biomass (e .g., wood) and fossil fuels (e.g., coal oil, natural gas) and their derivatives (e.g., petroleum coke, bituminous coke, coal tar oil, refinery gas, synthetic fuel, heavy recycle, asphalts, blast furnace gas, recovered gaseous butane, and coke oven gas). EPA does not consider animal manure to be (or has been) cons idered a traditional

fuel. Some states have identified manure as a so lid waste (e.g., Florida co nsiders manure to be a solid waste, but exempts farms from having to obtain solid waste management permits).

Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Asserti on that Manure is a

Traditional Fuel: EPA does not envision concluding that manure would meet our definition of

traditional fuel.

Does Manure Pass Legitimacy Criteria?

We currently do not believe or have informati on or data to support the position that manure satisfies the legitimacy criterion. Specifically, we have serious que stions/lack information as to whether manure: (1) is handled as a valuable commodity; (2) cont ains contaminants at levels comparable to traditional fuels; and (3) satisfie s the meaningful heating value criterion. Each one of these is described below, together with su ggestions as to what t ypes of information/data commenters could submit (or for which data coul d be solicited during th e comment period) to support the assertion that manure sati sfies each of these criteria.

Does Manure Satisfy the “Managed as Valuable Commodity” Legitimacy Criteria?

The preamble to the proposal states “Where there is an analogous fuel, the secondary material used as a fuel must be managed in a manner c onsistent with the management of the analogous fuel or otherwise be adequately contained so as to prevent releas es to the environment. Where there is no analogous fuel, the secondary material mu st be adequately contained so as to prevent releases to the environment.” We believe that, du e to the nature of manure, there is no analogous “traditional” fuel. As such, the manure must be ad equately contained so as to prevent releases to the environment. The preamble further stat es “a non-hazardous s econdary material is “adequately contained” if it is stored in a manner that adequately prevents hazards to the environment, considering the nature and t oxicity of the secondary material.”

We state in the proposal that “w e recognize that animal manure, as generated, is typically not handled as a valuable commodity at the point of generation, but remains in feedlots or other areas with the potential for contaminants to be released to the environment.” That is, we generally believe that due to the nature of manure (e.g., pathog en content, VOC content, andpotential for other contaminants, such as heavy metals or other additives), and how and where it is generated, that contaminants are released to the environment prior to it being burned as a fuel (e.g., via run-off or through contaminants volatilizi ng and being released to the ambient air since manure may not be contained in enclosed devices).

Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Assertion That Manure is Managed as a Valuable Commodity: USDA has provided anecdotal info rmation which they believe supports their position that manur e is managed as a valuable co mmodity. For example, USDA states “in reality, a feedlot serves both as a collection area and a temporary storage area for manure. Manure is harvested on a regular basis fr om a feedlot and is typi cally then land applied to provide nutrients to crops directly if the timing is ag ronomically-beneficial for land application or stored in stockpiles until such ti me.” USDA also states “It is infeasible to continuously (or very frequently) harvest manur e from a feedlot surf ace for a number of

reasons”. USDA further states that “The t ype of manure collection, storage, and treatment varies from farm-to-farm and is dependent upon a number of factors, including animal species, housing type, geographic location, and pr oducer expertise, among others.”

USDA also states that manure should be considered to be managed as a valuable commodity for purposes of this rule since manure that is used as a fertilizer is managed as a valuable commodity. First, we would note that the Iden tification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Material that are Solid Waste proposed rule only classifies as solid wastes those secondary materials that are burned in combustion units. The proposal does not address other end use applications (land application) as this is not relevant in determ ining which non-hazardous secondary materials, such as manure, are solid wastes for purposes of deciding which Clean Air Act (CAA) emission standards apply. We will con tinue to leave that decision— that is, which non-hazardous secondary materials are solid waste when manage d in these other applications, to the states. Thus, we suggest that commenters focus on pr oviding EPA with data or information that explains how manure that is used as a fuel is ade quately contained so as to prevent releases to the

environment. Useful information would include descriptions of the different ways manure is generated and handled with an emphasis on expl aining whether (and how) it is contained to prevent releases of contaminants to the environment. Additi onal information would also be helpful regarding how long manure is st ored prior to use as a fuel sin ce that is another part of this legitimacy criteria that must be satisfied (i.e., it must be used w ithin a reasonable timeframe). Finally, to the extent that manure is processed (s ee definition of processe d in the proposed rule) before it is used as a fuel, commenters could provide information on how manure is processed, how it is managed after it is pro cessed and before it is burned as a fuel that would allow EPA to determine whether manure that is processe d would meet this legitimacy criterion.

Does Manure Satisfy the “Contaminant” Legitimacy Criteria?

Non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels in combustion units must not contain contaminants that are significantly higher in co ncentration than traditional fuel products. The

term “contaminants” refers to constituents in non-hazardous secondary mate rials that may be of concern when burned as a fuel, in cluding those contaminants that could generate products of incomplete combustion (PICs). We acknowledge we have limited contaminant data on manure, although we believe pathogen levels of manure are higher than levels in traditional fuels. Wehave also heard from various sources that manur e can contain dioxin, heavy metals (arsenic), as

well as additives to the feed that could be of concern.

In order to demonstrate that this criterion is me t, contaminant levels found in manure need to be compared to traditional fuels that are in use to day (e.g., clean biomass, coal). If manure has equivalent or lower contaminant levels relative to traditional fuels, then the material would satisfy this criterion. If the ma terial has contaminant levels that are higher than levels found in traditional fuels, then it must be determined whet her those levels are significantly higher. The preamble states that “in determining whether the concentration of contam inants in non-hazardous secondary materials is “significantly higher,” we believe that a qualita tive evaluation of the potential human health and environmental risks posed may be appropriate in instances where contaminants in such secondary materials are presen t at slightly higher concentrations relative to

traditional fuels. A contaminant concentration could be elevated without posing an unacceptable risk, and therefore may not be c onsidered “significant” for the purposes of determining whether the non-hazardous secondary material is legitim ately being burned as a fuel in combustion

units.”

As such, a facility could demonstrate that although manure contains higher levels of contaminants, the use of this material (burning as a fuel) does not pose an unacceptable risk, and

therefore should not be considered to contain contaminants that are significantly higher in

contaminant levels.

Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Assertion That Manure Does Not Contain Contaminants that are Sign ificantly Higher in Concentrat ion than What is Contained in

Traditional Fuels. We have limited contaminant data on manure. We would recommend that commenters provide us with contaminant data th at would be incorporated into our existing material characterization paper. A more detail ed description of the contaminants that are

otherwise not associated with clean biomass that could be present in manure (e.g., what they are), as well as the source of contaminants, would also be helpful (e.g., is it through food additives or something else). Further, an a ssessment of the comparative levels of these

contaminants relative to traditional fuels would be useful information. If contaminants are present at levels higher than what is found in traditional fuels, a qualitative assessment as to whether these increased levels pose unacceptabl e risk could further support whether manure meets the contaminant legitimacy criteria. To the extent that manure is processed prior to being used as a fuel, commenters could provide informa tion or data on the levels of contaminants in processed manure relative to the levels in traditional fuels.

Does Manure Satisfy the “Meaningful Heating Value ” Legitimacy Criterion?

For purposes of meeting the legitimacy criteria for fuels, we would consider non-hazardous secondary materials with an energy value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb, as-fire d, to have meaningful heating value, and satisfy this legitimacy criteri on. Facilities that use non-hazardous secondary materials as fuels with an energy content lower than 5,000 Btu/lb, as fired, may also be able to demonstrate that a meaningful heating value is derived from the non-hazardous secondary material if the energy recovery unit can cost-effectiv ely recover meaningful energy from the non-hazardous secondary materials used as fuels.Data/Information Commenters Could Provide to Support the Assertion That Manure Has Meaningful Heating Value. We have limited “as-fir ed” heating value data on manure that is used as fuel in energy recovery devices. Moisture content of manures coul d result in low heating values that would not satisfy this criteria. Commenters could provide EPA with data that describes the energy content of th e various types of manures that are used as fuels for inclusion

in our material characterization paper. If the heating value is less than 5000 BTUs per pound, a description of whether the ener gy recovery unit can co st-effectively recover meaningful energy from the manure would be helpful to support wh ether the manure satisfies this requirement. Again, to the extent that manure is processed pr ior to being used as a fuel, commenters could also provide the heating value of the processed manure.